2022 (12) TMI 1087

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] dated 31.08.2020 has not been digitally signed and thereby there was a mistake apparent on record. The above mistake was suo moto rectified by the ld. CIT(A) vide order under section 154 of the Act dated 28.09.2020 followed by order under section 250 of the Act. Since the assessee has preferred an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.08.2020, the appeal filed by the assessee become infructuous and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. I.T.A. No. 865/Chny/2020 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts. When the Original return of income was scrutinised, the Revised Return of Income was processed u/s 143(1). Why the CPC disallowed the claim is due to the fact that assessee ought not have made the claim in the Revised Return of Income, when the Form 10CCB was not filed along with Original Return of Income. As per sec 143(1)(ii), there is an incorrect claim in the Revised R/I, apparent on the information in the R/I. Hence CPC's action of disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80IA for non filing of 10CCB along with the Original Return of Income and making an incorrect claim in the Revised Return of Income, when it ought to have disallowed its claim under sec 80IA in the Revised Return of Income is correct, and no interference is warrante....